[flash]

12 steps is too many - get a ramp - it's much easier

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

@rap I was not trying to imply it,s legal for kids to get alcohol anywhere, merely that it,s available everywhere to anyone over 21..I expect legalized pot will have a similar age restriction, so the point was what difference would it make if kids get their hands on pot as opposed to getting their hands on alcohol via the same methods they manage to do so now..so the fundamental question is this : is pot more dangerous than alcohol, in any respect ? Most published opinions would seem to indicate it,s not, but clearly many here have personal experiences that invalidate that common belief. I have no experience with pot so am not speaking from a position of a well informed individual on the topic,( not the same with alcohol, I do enjoy the spirits quite a bit and would lead the revolt at the slightest sign of prohibition <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) yet view it as a far more dangerous stimulant / narcotic than pot whether it,s health effects on those who abuse it, or the potential collateral damage risk to others associated with it. So not sure why the hoopla debating legalization of pot while other things which are ostensibly more dangerous are perfectly legal ?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

This country is not ready to have a rational discussion about legalization. One could easily theorize that legality might serve the dual purposes of raising revenue and taking the profit motive from criminals. Two wars in the middle east and the poppy fields still exist. Why? Money. So when we talk about legalization here money issues must be addressed. As to your question about the potential availability of alcohol now to kids quite probably being similar if legalization occurs , I agree. Heck when I was 18 I traveled to NJ or NY for beer because the drinking age was 18. Pa. Was 21. We also knew where to go to buy beer or booze from stores that sold to underage kids. Drugs stunt development. Emotional and intellectual growth gets stalled or stopped with kids who use. Yes we can all cite examples of those who this didn't happen to. Use me. But the point is it happens. High school is generally the only free education one receives. Mess that up and one is in a serious deficit that always causes one to lag their peers.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Chris Vais]

"you cannot blame pot for any ones addictions"



I'm not blaming pot for my son's addiction. We have family members with addiction problems on both sides of the family. What I am concerned about is the ease with which he was able to acquire the stuff in the first place. His illegal ID was a counterfit passport that showed him to be a 21 year old citizen of the Central African Republic. The MD who gave him the script apparently didn't think it odd that a white kid would present a passport from the CAR as an ID.



The pot that is available in the market place is not anything close to what was available in the 60's. It is powerfully addictive and it can result in aggressive, violent behavior. And then you have the criminal element associated with the farming and distribution. I had to send my family into exile for two years and carry a loaded firearm everywhere I went for my own protection because my son got crosswise with some hardcore dealers who beat him within an inch of his life and who invaded and trashed our house, taking tens of thousands of dollars in jewelry, computers, cameras, etc. I watched the Frontline program last night and I came away with the sense that even if pot were legalized in California we would still have a strong criminal element involved buy and selling it where it is not legal.



All of this is now water over the dam for us. I was able to keep him out of prison and alive long enough for him to come to the realization that using was not the way he wanted to spend his life. Today he is sober, and a happy well adjusted young adult making his own way in the world. And for that I thank God every day. I would not wish the nightmare that we lived on anyone.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Wow, Chris, your story is heart-wrenching. So glad to hear your son has turned his life around. It's very scary how easy it is for a kid, regardless of family upbringing, to take a wrong turn (getting cought up with the wrong crowd, etc.), leading to disastrous consequences.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Wow! I didn't really intend to provoke a pro/con discussion about cannabis. I am impressed, and we should all feel proud, that this controversial subject can be discussed in this forum in such a civil and respectful manner. Many other forums would have long since devolved into name calling and acrimony.



That said, I would like to make a few points:



This is a subject in which it is very difficult to separate fact from opinion. Our current policies are based on politics and perception, not on science. For example, while some claim there are hundreds or even thousands of studies proving cannabis seriously impairs driving, others claim there are just as many studies proving driving on cannabis is completely safe. The truth is that there are no definitive studies one way or the other. What is clear, though, is that cannabis intoxication does effect driving differently than alcohol intoxication. Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to drive faster and take more chances. Drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to drive slower and take fewer chances. With cannabis, experience correlates with driving impairment. Those who are experieneced cannabis users tend to have less problems driving than inexperienced cannabis users. Nevertheless, my OPINION is that people shouldn't drive under the influence of either, or anything else that causes impairment. I won't drive if I've taken certain allergy pills for my hay fever.



As for children, I don't really hear too may people arguing that they should use cannabis. Most of us agree that it is inappropriate for children, just as alcohol use is inappropriate for children. But we must also consider reality. Believing that making it illegal will keep children from gaining access is as illogical and wrong-headed as believing that if we make cancer illegal, people will stop getting cancer. Problems do not get solved by sticking one's head in the sand. Cannabis will be available whether it is legal or not. The difference is that, with legalization, and the attendant regulation, distribution can be far better controlled than leaving it in the hands of the black market. In America today, a 12 year old can obtain a bag of weed far easier than a bottle of Jack Daniels. And this fact explains the "gateway" theory (which, from a chemical standpoint, has long been debunked by almost every scientific body, including the government's own research). Under current policy, the "store" where someone buys cannabis is the same "store" that sells cocaine, heroin, MDMA, meth, etc. In Amsterdam they realized this and created the "coffee shops" to separate cannabis from "hard drugs". The experiment has been spectacularly successful in that the statistics of teens using the "hard drugs" has steadily declined since cannabis has effectively been legalized and distributed under government regulation.



It really isn't a question of whether cannabis is "good" or "bad", but rather, I suggest, one of harm reduction: how to most effectively and efficiently deal with the issue. Insisting it has "no accepted medical value in the United States", when a third of the states have now legalized it for medical use, is an indefensible position by the government. The government also actively seeks to impede research, only authorizing experiments designed to prove cannabis is bad in some way. Meanwhile, overseas there has been significant research suggesting that cannabis can help to shrink brain and other tumors. Other research has established that people who smoke both cigarettes and cannabis have a far lower incidence of lung cancer than those who smoke cigarettes alone. The cannabis, apparently, has some type of prophylactic effect against lung cancer. Shouldn't these avenues be researched in this country?



According to the government, over 120 million Americans have used cannabis. The percentage of these who experience any type of debilitating reaction is exceptionally small - certainly smaller than for most over-the-counter drugs. (Between 1,100-1,500 people in the U.S. die annually from aspirin poisoning. Not a single person in the history of recorded medicine has ever died from an overdose of cannabis).



In 1988, after two years of hearings, the DEA's own administrative law judge, the Hon. J. Francis Young ruled "marihuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.... One must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marihuana under medical supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious." The government chose to ignore the ruling.



And as for someone being able to tell who uses cannabis, guess who on the following list were admitted cannabis users:



Carl Sagan

Bing Crosby

Rodney Dangerfield

Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines)

Rick Steves (Travel author)

Michael Bloomberg

Bill Bradley

Sam Donaldson

Newt Gingrich

Margaret Trudeau

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Donna Shalala

Robert Altman

Montel Williams

Willie Nelson

The Beatles

Norman Mailer





The answer is all of the above.



Bill

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Hmmm, everyday I see the result of pot and other drug usage and it's effects on individuals and families. No studies just observable facts. People die all the time from pot. Car accidents come to mind. Overdose I will agree with you. The gateway theory has not been debunked. Characterizing it from a chemical standpoint is merely a red herring. Amersterdam is the size of what state and how many people live there? Comparison to the US is statistically invalid. Not apples to apples. I shudder with the comparisons of socialistic to democratic societies. Older peoples brains shrinking leads to dementia and diminished capacities. I don't want my brain to shrink! If I had a tumor then shrink away. Lots of murderers, rapists and hard core criminals are admitted pot smokers. I watch our census grow every year. Lots of factors contribute to that but the one constant factor is the steady growth of people with debilitating addiction problems. Hey it's great for business!

I too am very impressed by the civility of our discourse. I mean no offense with my disagreements.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Something not too many people are aware of (I wasn't until I watched a show about it on the History Channel) is that the criminalization of recreational drugs is a shockingly recent phenomenon. And the war on drugs as we know it didn't really get serious funding until the 1970s. Even though I've never even tried pot, let alone any hard drugs (the only thing I'm addicted to is this forum ), I'd long been of the opinion that all of it, not just pot, should be legalized, and taxes collected on the sales. But this show gave me pause, seeing footage of well-to-do socialites shooting up at respectable cocktail parties. Didn't look like such a good thing to me. But I wonder if the end result of all the current debt negotiations is that a lot of things that we've taken for granted for decades will be abandoned because we can simply no long afford them, and that the enforcement of our drug laws may be among them. No simple answers for sure...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

At the risk of offending people here, I must say that I have not been in discussions with so many folks who never did drugs. My job makes it easy to talk about past experiences without fear of retribution or trouble. Not bragging not proud. Flash do we have demographics of our members. I think it's pretty cool! Do 968 owners come from similar backgrounds and education? Middle, upper middle, upper class,job similarities. I thought I've noticed an engineering bent.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Regarding the "gateway theory", the following are quotes from the government's own Institute of Medicine report on cannabis, commissioned by then U.S. Drug Czar Barry McCaffery following the passage of California's Prop 215 legalizing medical use of cannabis:



"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."



"Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana--usually before they are of legal age. In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a 'gateway' drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, 'gateway' to illicit drug use."



And the promising research is that certain cannabinoids contained in cannabis shrink BRAIN TUMORS, not BRAINS.



It's easy to say "pot and other drug usage". One could just as easily talk of "beer and other drug usage", "vicodin and other drug usage" or even "cheese cake and other drug usage". I believe the discussion was about "cannabis", not "other drug usage".



As for the Amsterdam model, regardless of its size or the political leaning of its government, IT WORKS! What we are currently doing in this country DOESN'T WORK. All of the problems people have raised here have occurred under our current policy. It seems to me the height of foolishness to be unwilling to consider something that has worked elsewhere while continuing to pour literally billions of tax dollars into a program that has been a consistent failure for 40 years. Of course the DEA, law enforcement, prisons and jails, parole and probation departments, drug testing industry, drug rehabilitation industry, private prison industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, all big time players in our society, each have a vested interest in keeping the $40 billion a year stream of cash flowing. But in our present economic condition, can we really afford to keep funding programs and policies that don't work?



Bill

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Just curious, what's your feeling on the de-criminalization of other drugs? It seems that the same logic applies to the "harder" drugs, right?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

I agree cigarettes and alcohol are initial gateway drugs. Most folks strongly argue against that point . I misread your brain tumor shrinkage, my mistake. I said pot and other usage because very few people just smoke pot. Nor was I asserting that the effects of pot usage are linked to subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. Getting high and the involvement in that culture lead to subsequent use. People hang with people who do the same type of drugs. People graduate up because it is " a better and quicker high". Or so they convince each other within thes cultures. I agree our policies don't work. Then again they were not designed or meant to. Money controls all. None of the policies deal with money. Suggesting that those who work helping people get better have a vested interest in keeping a failed gov't policy going, well. Quoting those leading these failed policies is well. Florida is filled with pill factories where doc's prescribe all day long. Doc's prescribe suboxne for pain for detox and suggest you stay on for years. Union members who work physically demanding jobs get scripts for vicadon for pain until they do eat through their scripts and then they buy off the street go to west virginia and miners swallow oxies by the dozens. The clarity arrives if you ask would I be ok letting or encouraging my kid or loved ones to engage in this behavior with the possible results? That's harder drugs!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Langley968]

Never used the stuff and after sitting down this evening and watching the program, my negative opinion about it is even stronger.



With regards to the comment: "As for the Amsterdam model, regardless of its size or the political leaning of its government, IT WORKS!" --- NOT true! I was in Holland this past March and they are talking about changing the rules because of the "type" of tourist the current regulations are attracting! Huh? They couldn't figure that out in advance? Really...



With regards to the "list" of those admitting to having used it, that carries NO weight (for me at least). Famous people (politicians, sports stars, entertainment stars) have always left a LOT to be desired over the course of history, with regrads to their "wisdom". All you need to do is take a look at the current economic, moral and selfish mess that society is in.



I am glad to see such an "open and honest" discussion going on here.

To all those with differing opinions, keep it up.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

"I said pot and other usage because very few people just smoke pot." Well I dont know what you base that statement on. In your field, your really not going to see anything else. I mean, honestly, how many people admit themselves for treatment solely because of pot use? I'd be willing to bet zero. So it stands to reason, that the people you see would do more than just pot. The bottom line is cannabis is not a physically addictive substance. Psychologically, thats another story. Addiction is a personality trait. Those who become psychologically dependent on cannabis, could become psychologically dependent on anything. Like Porsches. Cannabis has a recorded history of medicinal, and recreational use for about oh...2000+ years. Personally, I dont care for ethyl alcohol, and dont hang around with people who drink, they usually become sloppy, and foolish. Chemically speaking, cannabinoids are proven to be far safer than alcohol.



The pot today isnt any stronger than the pot decades ago per se. It has become more common, and used. The strains of cannabis that have higher THC content have always been around. In the last couple decades it has been cross pollenated, and selected for content. The strains with the highest concentrations are about 27% THC. Typically, 10-15% is the norm. The ditch weed from the 60's, and 70's was about 5%. Its a bit like saying wine is more dangerous than beer, cause it has a higher ethyl alcohol content. The truth is, it depends on who is drinking it. I believe addiction to be a genetic, and psychological predisposition. Thats not to say many compounds arent physically, and chemically addictive. Some certainly are. Opiates come to mind. Do them long enough, and you will acquire a actual dependence on them.



I really dont think its right to call 215 a sham. Peron certainly did intend his prop for medicinal use only. Thing is, they kept the law very vague. Most doctors will recommend it for you, because they know how benign it really is.(imagine that, trained educated medical professionals know more about drugs, than the federal govt, Washington would beg to differ) If cannabis has no medical use, why has big pharma synthesized cannabinoids? Things like marinol, and marketed them? Synthetic forms of the active compounds in pot. So, its ok to synthesize it into a pill, but the herbal remedy is evil, and wrong? Please someone explain that to me. The synthetic versions also have other side effects. Really what it is, is that pharmaceutical companies, cant patent herbs, and plants. They also cant sell you something you can grow in your back yard for free. I know AIDs patients, and cancer patients who would die from their treatments if not for cannabis. its is the most powerful, effective, and safest appetite stimulant known to man. THC works on the same neuron receptors in the brain that interpret pain, as opiates. The kicker is, THC isnt habit forming, or physically addictive. Again, not conducive to big pharma revenue. Plain, and simple cannabis has a recorded medicinal history for thousands of years. Without a single recorded death. The LD50 of THC, is really non existent. It exists, but isnt physically possible.



I think the most important thing to point out when discussing cannabis, is the industrial use of it. So, lets talk a bit about why cannabis became illegal in the first place. Hemp. Im willing to guess your all familiar with petrochemical fibers like nylon? In 1936(?) an invention was created called the hemp decorticator. This drastically reduced the time it took to harvest hemp. Dupont had other ideas about where the fiber industry should be going. Naturally they felt their new petroleum based fibers should dominate the market. How to do this? "Reefer madness" of course. Pay off the lobbyists, and generate false propaganda Anslinger, and what later became known as the DEA certainly needed the project to stay afloat, considering they no longer were needed to uphold prohibition. Anslinger was more than willing to spread the misinformation, lies, and hysteria. Hemp is cannabis with a very low THC content, so low you couldnt even use it to get high. yet it is still illegal to grow. No one can explain that one to me yet either. Our country was founded because of what we could do with the cannabis plant. The constitution is written on it, clothes up until the 30's were made from it, bibles printed on it, fuel can be made from it, gruel, all kinds of foods, feed for livestock, etc, etc, etc . It really is the most useful plant on earth. My mothers side of the family is from Green County, KY they grew hemp until the 30's. Of course there was no petroleum shortage in the 30's.....hello nylon, goodbye hemp/cannabis.



I am an insomniac, and ambien has serious side effects for me. Ive used cannabis for about 20 years now. 12 of which legally licensed. Its safer, not physically addictive, and not habit forming like other sleep aids available. Ive never done anything else. Except cigarettes, and alcohol when I was young. Those are the real gateway drugs, if there is really a such thing. I am proof that cannabis doesnt lead to garbage like heroin, and other opiates, meth, cocaine, etc. I know more professional people who use cannabis regularly than I can count. Engineers, scientists, lawyers......the list goes on. The myth that pot users are lazy, and stupid are just that, myths. I am self employed, have a degree, and have an IQ, that I dont care to mention usually, cause it just seems conceited to me. I mention it now, to point out that the stereotypes arent true. Its 2011, and my cannabis is legal where I live. I talk about it openly, and freely. People will judge me, but oh well.





"The greatest service that can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture." -Thomas Jefferson





"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson







"An acre of the best ground for hemp, is to be selected and sewn in hemp and be kept for a permanent hemp patch." - Thomas Jefferson's Garden book 1849



[size="3"][size="2"]"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere." Jefferson



"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country." -Thomas Jefferson

[/size]

"Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

-Thomas Jefferson[/size]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Absolutes don't work here. I have never said everyone who smokes pot gets addicted or is lazy. Cancer patients get relief from it's use and that is appropriate. We have lots of adolescents who are admitted for just pot use. It is a problem because their insurances don't recognize it as a drug needing treatment. Of course if you snort an eight ball of blow they don't consider any need for treatment either. But those are mechanical issues. Not everyone who smokes pot gets led down the path to heroin. Never said it did. Addiction is not a personality trait. The AMA recognizes it as a disease. Much controversy here. People have a right to choose what they want to do or use and for what purpose. The medicinal effects of pot are well recognized. So are the deleterious effects. Of course there are people who can smoke pot, hold jobs, be productive, be intelligent. There are those that can't. We deal with the human costs of those folks. Who by the way are our children, brothers and sisters, Moms and Dads and our grandparents. No absolutes here. It is what it is. My concern is growing this population with it's attendant costs which society pays for now and in the future. The real issue here, is our society ready to have an honest open discourse on the legalization of drugs. You can not just talk about legalizing pot because the issues are one and the same. If as a society the voters decide( what's that less than 50 percent of those registered to vote who do actually vote) to legalize drugs then so be it . Point is that it was accomplished after the entire issue was looked at. Not a slice of it. By the way, I did drugs for many years. I am not proud of it, not too smart upon reflection. Cost me in educational losses. Dropped out of law school( I suspect some would argue that's not a bad thing) and took a whle to get on track. I didn't turn out too bad. How could I? I've got a 968! There was a lot of wasted time, money and effort. I was a heavy pot user and do know the effects it had on me. Again no absolutes. I'm sure we could find someone who mirrors my use and didn't take the path or get sidetracked as I did. Just looking at both sides. They both exist.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

[quote name='Rap' timestamp='1311937797' post='113402']

Absolutes don't work here. I have never said everyone who smokes pot gets addicted or is lazy. Cancer patients get relief from it's use and that is appropriate. We have lots of adolescents who are admitted for just pot use. It is a problem because their insurances don't recognize it as a drug needing treatment. Of course if you snort an eight ball of blow they don't consider any need for treatment either. But those are mechanical issues. Not everyone who smokes pot gets led down the path to heroin. Never said it did. Addiction is not a personality trait. The AMA recognizes it as a disease. Much controversy here. People have a right to choose what they want to do or use and for what purpose. The medicinal effects of pot are well recognized. So are the deleterious effects. Of course there are people who can smoke pot, hold jobs, be productive, be intelligent. There are those that can't. We deal with the human costs of those folks. Who by the way are our children, brothers and sisters, Moms and Dads and our grandparents. No absolutes here. It is what it is. My concern is growing this population with it's attendant costs which society pays for now and in the future. The real issue here, is our society ready to have an honest open discourse on the legalization of drugs. You can not just talk about legalizing pot because the issues are one and the same. If as a society the voters decide( what's that less than 50 percent of those registered to vote who do actually vote) to legalize drugs then so be it . Point is that it was accomplished after the entire issue was looked at. Not a slice of it. By the way, I did drugs for many years. I am not proud of it, not too smart upon reflection. Cost me in educational losses. Dropped out of law school( I suspect some would argue that's not a bad thing) and took a whle to get on track. I didn't turn out too bad. How could I? I've got a 968! There was a lot of wasted time, money and effort. I was a heavy pot user and do know the effects it had on me. Again no absolutes. I'm sure we could find someone who mirrors my use and didn't take the path or get sidetracked as I did. Just looking at both sides. They both exist.

[/quote]



Rap, that entire post wasnt directed at you, or any one particular person. What im saying is that saying things like cannabis leads to harder drugs, is stereotyping. Neither one are exclusive to the other. There are no absolutes in that sense no. To me, there is clearly a difference between someone(an adult) admitting themselves for a chemical dependency, and a minor whos parents found a doobie in their sock drawer, and freak out, and send them to rehab. Usually the really out of control kids are on other drugs. Their is also a huge difference between snorting and eight ball, and smoking pot. I think this kind of vague lumping of substances together contributes to the problems. They are all their own compounds, with their own properties, and should addressed, and recognized as such. As far as peoples paths, and life choices, thats never going to be absolute. What is absolute here are the chemical mechanisms behind it all. There are 2 types of addiction. Physical addiction, and mental addiction. Which Im sure you know. Physical addiction is when the body develops a actual chemical, and physical dependency. A mental addiction is when a person develops a psychological dependence on something. Psychological dependencies are not exclusive to drugs. Ever seen the show hoarders? A disease? Yes of course its a disease. A psychological disease. Personalities can be directly related to psychological disorders. They can also be a genetic predisposition. I fully agree what people in those situations need is therapy. Whether it be a psychological dependence or actual chemical dependency. I fail to see how locking them in a cage, and ripping off tax payers to house them does anything for their disease though. Im curious what these deleterious effects medicinal cannabis has? No treatment is ever 100%. With drugs its a matter of do the side effects outweigh the benefits. With cannabis, it makes all the other treatments seem inferior in that regard. Unless your saying, I should just take the ambien, and deal with the migraines, and vomiting profusely. Personally Id rather vaporize some cannabis, or ingest some. My doctor agrees. I havent actually smoked it in years. Smoking is somewhat inherently bad. I have to say, I dont experience any real side effects. Unless you call the munchies side effects. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Is our society ready for an honest open discourse about legalizing drugs, or legalizing cannabis? I think so, arent we? I dont think the issues are one in the same at all. With the exception of heroin, that really truly has no medical value any more, that other compounds dont do better. The other drugs are basically legal. The problem is Washington is denying that cannabis has medical value. It is still classed a schedule 1 substance. Meaning they are officially denying its medicinal uses. Most of the drugs people are abusing are not schedule 1 drugs, and as you've pointed out are easily had by doctors totally legally.

Rap, I appreciate the civil discourse here. No one person is the same, like you say there are no absolutes, if cannabis wasnt your cup of tea, and you werent able enjoy its benefits without it somehow getting in the way of your endeavors thats well understood. I get the feeling you dabbled in more than just pot though. You cant take away the freedoms of everyone, because a relatively small percentage have issues. In my experience, it getting in the way of school is a matter of priorities. That can be an issue of many things besides pot. If a person can come home after a long day, have a beer, and unwind. Why cant I do the same, and get some rest? Its not like my liver is slowly eroding from the ethanol Im putting in it. My professors specifically told me not to drink the solvents. LOL I see both sides. I just dont see it as a 1:1 ratio. For every person that has an issue, countless dont. I just dont see what this serious issue there is with cannabis specifically. Its easy to just say "drugs" in general. Its not very accurate, and pretty misleading though. Like I said they all have different properties. Thats an absolute fact.

Believe it or not Rap, I commend what you do. There are people out there that have real issues, and need treatment. I just dont see it as criminal. For any drug use, or abuse. Its a behavioral, psychological, and chemical issue, when you break it down to its core.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Ryan]

Well done.....this has been good reading. I tend to agree with you 4banger.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

This is interesting to participate in. We obviously have a degree of strong opinions about this topic and are able to speak with respect to each other. I don't know why this is with this group. Most gatherings of people discussing these issues devolve into heated spats and recriminations or yelling and shouting. We treat 1500 patients a year. We review lets say another 1500-2000- for suitability for admission. Many are not appropriate for medical or mental reasons and there are those few that are referred to lesser levels of care. Interestingly enough many of these resurface after failures at those levels. All abuse drugs. Most are poly abusers. They come from Yale to jail. Demographics cover the sprectrums. Regardless of the drug of choice, our treatment modality is the same. Every patient thinks their addiction is special and different. All are garden variety addictions. I do not really care one way or another what people do in their personal lives. Those are their personal decisions to make and my opinion regarding these choices is not material. We just see and treat the results of some of these choices. The gov't does not pay us for this treatment. In essence, we all do. Health care utilization gets passed along to us all regardless of the utilization. Lets not devolve into a health care discussion though because talk about really getting off point! Banger your right my dabbling went further than pot but that doesn't make me anymore knowledgeable! Probably less!!! lol

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Regarding Amsterdam, the recent move to bar foreigners from the coffee shops is not due to any problems associated with them. Rather, a new, more conservative, government has assumed power and doesn't like Amsterdam viewed as a "drug tourist" city. Once again it is all about politics, not science.



It is true that the number one substance for which young people are admitted to treatment programs is cannabis. However, this is not because they are seeking help. Rather, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they have been sent there by the criminal justice system which gave them a choice: rehab or jail.



The United States has 5% of the world's population, yet we have 25% of the world's prison population. On a per capita basis, we are number one in the world in imprisoning people, and number two has long ago been left in our dust. Roughly 65-75% of people under control of the criminal justice system are there for drugs or drug-related crime. This includes the guy that breaks into your house and steals your TV to buy heroin. Of course if heroin were available through legal sources it would be very cheap and the guy wouldn't be breaking into your house. Kids shoot each other with Uzis in our inner cities for the right to stand on a street corner and make $500-$1000 per day. If drugs were decriminalized and they could only make $5-$10 standing on that corner they wouldn't be shooting each other for the opportunity. The crime and street violence associated with drugs is the result of the money generated by a black market system, not the drugs themselves. Another product of prohibition policies is all of the money spent on courts, lawyers, prisons, etc. (Yes, I am advocating putting myself out of business). If drugs were decriminalized, crime in this country would go down 50% virtually overnight.



I'm not espousing heroin and meth, etc. as good time fun activities. But in a society where people are going to use these substances, it seems to me to make sense to try and address the problems caused by the abuse of these substances in a manner that is both successful and cost effective - concepts that it seems have steered clear of the Potomac and surrounding areas. Its called "Harm Reduction". It may be effective for attracting votes to preach about the horrors of drug abuse and a "throw away the key" solution, but experience has taught us that this methodology is very expensive and doesn't work. How long do we keep throwing money down this rat hole before we wake up and realize there has to be a better way?



Oh, and one other thing: As a co-author of Prop 215, I have often been amused over the last 15 years by people who claim to know what we were thinking when we drafted the proposition. There's nothing quite like having someone who wasn't there telling me how it went down.



Bill

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i disagree about crime going down - i see that argument all the time and it is extremely flawed



contrary to popular misconception, drug users don't hold up banks or mug people to pay for their drugs - yes, there is plenty of petty larceny committed, but it is a very small percentage of crime

yes, they shoot each other, but that is turf stuff



there is the presumption that drug dealers would rather work at a job than deal drugs - this is not true - they could do that now - they choose an "easier" way of life, most often having others do the work for them



the crime levels would not change much - you would just see other stuff becoming more predominant - the drug dealers would just move on to other things, just as the mafia did



i'm not suggesting that we don't waste a lot of resources on drug enforcement - it is completely ineffective



in fact our system sucks, and is a complete waste - if we had any kind of clue, we would have just one large prison, throw everybody there, and let them sort it all out amongst themselves inside - now that might be a deterrent - but that's a whole different discussion, about an entirely different industry out of control



i think the proponents of 215 need to get a better list to display though, because upon reviewing it, i don't see many that have not been found to have their reasoning and or actions extremely questioned - i think i now understand why many of them have been the way they are and have done some of the things they have done



as i said before though, i could really care less if it's legal or not, as long as it stays in the house - i don't want it in the workplace or on the road - i won't hire a user, just as i won't hire a heavy drinker, and i don't want to be in a car or on the road with either when they are - but, i don't care what somebody does in the privacy of their own home



as for the motivations or underlying plans, there is no way that anybody can claim that the medical use platform was not a ploy to get one step closer to legalization - nice chess move, but come on - do you think we're all stoned?



this has been a great discussion though, and i love that so many opinions can be expressed without getting nasty - very cool stuff indeed

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.